On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 18:12, Glenn Maynard wrote: > I'm confused. We have three cases: > > 1. Close bug #12345 directly (12345-done), noting the version that fixed it. > 2. Note in the changelog that bug #12345 is fixed; the bug receives a > notification of the version that fixed it. > 3. Note in the changelog that bug #12345, "ls --crash crashes", is > fixed; the bug receives a notification of the version that fixed it. > > #3 is obviously ideal, if the maintainer has time; no debate there. > > However, you're saying that #1 is preferable to #2. Why? It seems to > have no disadvantage to #1, with the added advantages that I can check > which version fixed bug #12345 without hitting the network (since it's > documented in the changelog), and saves developer time. What am I missing?
Start with Herbert Xu's premise... > We've gone through this many times already. Upstream changes should > not be documented in the Debian changelog, even if they fix bugs in > the Debian BTS. ... and follow the bouncing ball. -- Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> My weblog doesn't detail my personal life: http://me.woot.net
